U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman protects the environment: Letters to the Editor for Friday, Oct. 19, 2012

Re "Waxman a valuable presence for area in D.C." (Editorial, Oct. 14):

I was pleased to read that the newspaper is endorsing Henry Waxman for re-election to Congress. Unfortunately, the endorsement article only made passing mention of the work he has done to protect our health and environment. The air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat are all safer because of his leadership in Congress. Congressman Waxman was one of the primary authors of the Clean Air Act amendments, saving tens of thousands of American lives every year by reducing toxic air pollution. Congressman Waxman sponsored the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, keeping dangerous pollutants out of our drinking water. Congressman Waxman provided leadership to establish the Food Quality Act, keeping the most dangerous pesticides out of our food. We need to re-elect Henry Waxman so he can continue working to protect our health and environment.

-- Alfred Sattler, Rancho Palos Verdes

Undecided voters

Gov. Mitt Romney suggested that lower tax rates stimulate solid economic growth and do not decrease tax revenues; and with lower rates, businesses expand and create jobs. With more people paying taxes, the government will collect more tax revenues even though rates are lower. President Barack Obama hasn't made a strong argument against lower taxes for high-income earners. Romney claims this has worked in the past, but will it work now? The economy was much different from when President Ronald Reagan came into office. Interest rates are low now but high when he took office. The Bush tax cuts have been in place and the economy is still weak. To win the economic debate, President Obama needs to convince independent voters like me that high-income earners must pay higher tax rates and that those rates will help balance the budget without slowing investment and the economy. Hopefully the man with the best plan will win the election. I'm still undecided at this point.

-- David Rothman, Encino

A strike by voters

Re "Yes on 30" (Editorial, Oct. 14):

In your editorial backing Proposition 30 you say: "The right thing to do is pay up -- and then demand that the reforms begun in Sacramento this year with pension and workers' comp reform continue." The problem is the reforms never come. I think the voters should do what the teachers unions do: Wait for a critical moment, like the start of school, and then go out on strike. A strike by the voters would mean no on Prop. 30. Maybe those that will have to "pay up" should be deciding this issue -- if they don't move out of California.

-- Patricia A. Puccio, Rancho Palos Verdes

Capping vacation accrual

Re "State on hook for massive banked vacation payoffs" (Oct. 14):

Is it any wonder that California is in financial straits and asking residents to increase their tax liability? For a two-year period, the state paid out more than $800 million in unused time off. Not a new issue, but one that was identified several years ago and has multiplied. Having worked for a major corporation in private industry, this does not happen to this extent. Vacation accrual is capped until the time is expended. And the policy is not nearly as lenient as 80 days. While you cannot force a person to take off, an incentive of no further accumulation of time is a way to limit these large payouts. However, it is much easier for our legislators to cut educational dollars and reduce the prison population instead of tackling these issues head on. It is time our elected officials step up to the plate and start taking care of business.

-- Bonnie Hofmann, Lakewood

Abdication of pet responsibility

Re "Protecting pets" (Letters, Oct. 17):

The few purebreds sold by 11 pet shops will not impact the 60,000 impounds entering L.A. city shelters annually, but this "feel-good" legislation sends a clear signal not to open a business in a city that changes operational rules on emotional whims. California law has over 90 code sections regulating the care and sale of animals by pet stores. The city can cite or close down any pet store that violates state laws, including advising of spay, neuter, licensing and lemon laws for ill animals. This ban is an abdication of responsibility to protect the welfare of purebred pets by enforcing laws. It has no impact on illegal imports and sales from backyards. The city loses the right to inspect pet shops that will no longer need a permit from L.A. Animal Services by becoming merely supply stores. Sadly, the ban on regulated pet sales will drive people to unregulated Internet sellers that primarily sell puppy mill pets -- the very thing the City Council claims to oppose.

Toyota the right choice

Re "Shuttle an `amazing' sight" (Letters, Oct. 16):

I must reply to Wendy Bristol Payne's complaint that a Ford or Chevy should have towed the space shuttle instead of a Toyota. I was an employee at the Ford plant in Pico Rivera for more than 13 years. During one of two short layoffs, I worked at the GM plant in South Gate. Those plants are gone. GM and Ford have no plants in California. Toyota has several assembly plants in California, and its national sales and marketing headquarters is in Torrance. It employs many Californians. As difficult as this is for me to say, Toyota was the correct choice.

-- Larry C. Radle, Torrance

It's not about race

Re "What drives the Obama haters?" (Letter, Oct. 3):

I resent the letter writer calling people on the right prejudiced and bigots. This is not true, but people are told this daily through news outlets including MSNBC. The reason we do not want President Obama re-elected is because he is the most left-wing president we have ever had and we do not believe his policies are good for the country, not that we cannot accept a black man as president. Conservatives would vote for Allen West, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or Mia Love before any white liberal for president. Herman Cain, a black man, was actually a Tea Party favorite at the beginning of the Republican primaries last year.

-- Michelle Roche, Valley Village

False information

Re "Who killed bin Laden?" (Letters, Oct. 16):

Letter writer John Knapp opines that President Obama should get no credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden because he was not one of the Navy SEALs who carried out the mission. For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit. But even more perplexing, Mr. Knapp states that President Obama is a "big supporter of gun control." Really? This often-repeated statement has no basis in fact. It is a lie. President Obama has never stated he favors taking guns from law-abiding citizens. It makes one wonder where some people get the "information" they use to form their opinions.